Ok, first off, not being able to prove a negative doesn't mean anything as it pertains to God existing. You can't prove any negative.

Second thing, I never said God couldn't exist in the first place. Obviously we all understand that God might exist or might not exist. That's not
new information. What matters is if there is evidence for God's existence or not. Just stating that something can exist doesn't change anything.
Because something can exist doesn't mean it does.

Last thing. What's up with the "Get over it" comment??? I don't think I've done anything to deserve you talking to me like that. If you're going to
be an A-hole for no reason then you can just go f*ck yourself and talk to yourself from now on.

originally posted by: Kashai
And what credentials you to make such a statement?

What it is based upon.

Intuition.

I do not see the point in taking you seriously.

Or are you simply trying to move the goal post?

You don't know what the hell you're even talking about. Why are you even here??? I don't get it.

You're not convincing anyone of anything and you're not here to learn anything either so what's the point??? Why waste your time???

There are only a couple of us who even are nice enough to talk to you and you treat us all like sh*t. Do you do this in normal life too??? You must
be very lonely and if you're like this to people in person it's pretty clear why that is.

However, Flint also acknowledges that antitheism is typically understood differently from how he defines it. In particular, he notes that it has been
used as a subdivision of atheism, descriptive of the view that theism has been disproven, rather than as the more general term that Flint prefers. He
rejects non-theistic as an alternative, "not merely because of its hybrid origin and character, but also because it is far too comprehensive. Theories
of physical and mental science are non-theistic, even when in no degree, directly or indirectly, antagonistic to theism."[6]

Opposition to the existence of a god or gods is frequently referred to as dystheism (which means "belief in a deity that is not benevolent") or
misotheism (strictly speaking, this means "hatred of God"). Examples of belief systems founded on the principle of opposition to the existence of a
god or gods include some forms of Atheistic or Theistic Satanism, and maltheism.

What are your credentials do make the assertions you continue to blindly make?

What it is based upon?

Intuition?

it's based upon a lack of objective data. Your own assertions are little more than intuition so the entire exercise is full on irony.

Atheism then is clearly a religion that engages in Anthromophism.

I do not see the point in taking you seriously.

and there is far less point in taking you seriously when you can't even use the correct terminology...ANTHROPOMORPHISM. Which is imbuing human
characteristics upon god(s), animals or objects. none of which atheists do. you can't give an attribute to something you don't think exists any more
than science can prove a negative.

Or are you simply trying to move the goal post?

Good luck with that.

you've already moved them so far we don't even know what field you're playing on.

Of course I have and by establishing that based upon what we know for real it is possible that the Universe was created.

Ok so like I posted this same link about 3 hours ago.....in this thread

1. Atheism

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a
sophisticated monotheism. The tribal gods of the early inhabitants of Palestine are of little or no philosophical interest. They were essentially
finite beings, and the god of one tribe or collection of tribes was regarded as good in that it enabled victory in war against tribes with less
powerful gods. Similarly the Greek and Roman gods were more like mythical heroes and heroines than like the omnipotent, omniscient and good God
postulated in mediaeval and modern philosophy. As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion,
notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes.

The word ‘theism’ exhibits family resemblance in another direction. For example should a pantheist call herself an atheist? Or again should belief
in Plato's Form of the Good or in John Leslie's idea of God as an abstract principle that brings value into existence count as theism (Leslie 1979)?
Let us consider pantheism.

At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical
universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism.
Probably the theologian Paul Tillich was a pantheist in little more than this minimal sense and his characterising God as the ground of being has no
clear meaning. The unanswerable question ‘Why is there anything at all?’ may give us mystical or at any rate dizzy feelings but such feelings do
not differentiate the pantheist from the atheist. However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist
(Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities. Not emergent
merely in the weak sense that a radio receiver's ability to receive signals from distant stations might be said to be emergent because it is not a
mere jumble of components (Smart 1981). The components have to be wired together in a certain way, and indeed the workings of the individual
components can be explained by the laws of physics. Contrast this with a concept of emergence that I shall call ‘strong emergence’. C. D. Broad in
his Scientific Thought (Broad 1923) held that the chemical properties of common salt could not even in principle be deduced from those of sodium and
chlorine separately, at the very time at which the quantum theory of the chemical bond was beginning to be developed. Though the mind has seemed to
some to be strongly emergent from its physical basis, it can be argued that developments in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science and neuroscience
favour weak emergence only.

One strong form of pantheism ascribes mental properties to the cosmos. If the weak sense of emergence was adopted we would be faced with the question
of whether the universe looks like a giant brain. Patently it does not. Samuel Alexander asserted, rather than argued, that mentality strongly emerged
from space-time, and then that at some future time there will emerge a new and at present hardly imaginable level which he called ‘deity’
(Alexander 1927). It is hard to tell whether such an implausible metaphysics should be classified as as pantheism or as theism. Certainly such a deity
would not be the infinite creator God of orthodox theism. A. N. Whitehead, too, had a theory of an emergent deity, though with affinities to
Platonism, which he saw as the realm of potentiality and therefore he connected the atemporal with the contingent temporal deity (Whitehead 1929).
Such views will not deliver, however implausibly, more than a finite deity, not the God of core theism. God would be just one more thing in the
universe, however awesome and admirable.

The weak form of pantheism accepts that the physical universe is all and eschews strong emergence. Sometimes the weak form of pantheism is
rhetorically disguised as theism, with God characterised as ‘absolute depth’ or some equally baffling expression, as by Paul Tillich. At any rate,
whether or not we accept pantheism as a sort of theism, what we mean by ‘atheism’ will vary according to what in the dialectical situation we
count as theism.

2. An Adequate Concept of God

This brings us naturally to the question of what we might consider to be an adequate concept of God, whether or not we wish to argue for the existence
of such a being. Some profound remarks were made on this by J. N. Findlay in his article (‘Can God's Existence be Disproved?’ (Findlay 1949). The
heathen may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as merely stocks and stones. More and more adequate conceptions of God still portray God
as limited in various respects. A fully adequate conception of God, Findlay said, would see God as not only unlimited in various admirable properties
but also as a necessarily existing being. Thus ‘There is one and only one God’ would have to be a logically necessary truth. Now logic, he held,
is tautologous and without ontological commitment. So God's necessary existence would have to be something different from logical necessity. The
trouble is how to see what this could be.

Dude, get some meds for your ADHD or something because you're all over the place.

You can't even follow a single thought or idea longer than your own post. Now you're telling me something about antitheism for some reason.

So now I'm a masochist huh??? Because that has what to do with this conversation??? So what if I am a masochist. How would that be relevant to this
conversation???

You don't make sense long enough to even have a discussion about anything. It's like you're having another conversation in your head and splicing
parts of that conversation in with the one you're having with me but I don't know the hell you're even trying to say.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.